“I think [La Course] is a good step but it is not enough,” Lappartient said.

“I think that we must continue in women’s cycling to make women’s cycling richer, and that is something the UCI must concentrate on. That is why I will speak to the organisers of the Tour de France because they are leaders in the world for organising races and we need them to maybe be more involved in women’s cycling.”

Not really a promise as such, but will he be able to do anything to persuade organizers?

"I've already made it known that I want to ban radios in the coming worlds,"

The intention, then, seems to be to re-consider a progressive elimination, beginning with the iridated review and the minor races, then passing season after season, even with the help of technological innovations, to break it completely from every race.

Of course you may not view every promise as a good thing, or only good under certain circumstances.

Yes. We will continue to ask to forbid in competition corticoids and also Tramadol. I think that we have to go in this way. Of course, we have to be serious and not do something that would also be illegal. Of course we have to work very closely with the lawyer of the UCI to see what is possible

David Lappartient, has made technological fraud in the professional peloton his biggest target.

“We were not professional enough on this subject and I will bring some new ideas to check the bikes and to be stronger on this subject. I don’t want the UCI to be seen as weak in the fight against technological fraud,”

Another file opened by David Lappartient, that of the decrease of the number of runners by team. "At the time, there were ten riders in the teams, and we managed to go down to nine, but I'm going to go further, and six riders per team would be better."

Too far? I would say let's see what happens with the reductions planned for 2018. Run with those numbers for a couple of years and see how it pans out before doing anything too hasty.

Taken in isolation though I'd have no probs with it. As long as they bumped up the number of invited teams - max of 29 to keep under the 176 limit.

What happens when you reduce the numbers in each team is that it gets harder too compose a team with mixed objectives. Surely you can put a half-bad GC candidate with a climber or two for support in a 9-person team with a decent sprinter that demands at least a 4-man dedicated train. ( with Sprintoff and Zakharin, for example, and with Dan Martin and some german dude with good looking hair). If you cut from 9 to 8 it gets a little bit harder - and it may not work out very well for teams that have hired riders looking forward to compose this kind of teams with mixed objectives. There are some that just can't be put on the team and either the GC rider or the sprinter may disagree with that etc. Cutting all the way to 6 sounds radical, but it might work - what happens then is you migth get no teams with mixed objectives. They will be forced to choose, and turn up as with a boxing squad for the bunch sprints or as with all eyes fixed on the GC table. There will be two more separated races in the race (then why not have two races....) but maybe some of the lost diversity can be made up by adding a couple of teams.Sprinters vs GC teams are extreme examples, some may actually show up with a squad of stage thieves for media montagna stages in weeks 2 and 3, while still may come with a squad with unparallelled stamina and restitution that is almost unbeatable supporting Nairo Quintana's 4th week surge..

Pretty much what Mr T says in terms of how teams will operate, plus there is the issue of rider employment.As we have seen with a number of squads for next season, rider reduction in races leads to rider reduction in squads.A quarter of the current peloton out of work, or forced to move down levels is not an enticing prospect. Emerging talent will find it a lot harder to make the breakthrough.On the possible plus side, falling costs might entice more sponsorship and encourage more teams to be set up. However this is by no means a gimme.

Lappartient's initial goals appear to be narrow and very much in line with the cycling public's perception of what is required to deliver a French TDF winner.

David Lappartient, new president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), spoke in an interview with AFP on Thursday for a ceiling of the budget of the teams, rather than for a salary cap.

"We have to be able to pay an athlete at the price we want, but if we pay a very expensive runner, we have a little less money and it rebalances the forces,"

The UCI President acknowledged that the "technicality of implementing" a budget ceiling for teams "is not so simple": "We are in preliminary discussions and I must also discuss with representatives of It's something that needs to be shared, accepted."

I wouldn't trust any team not to try and find loopholes in a budget ceiling.

Quote

"The ambition I want to bring is a global reform of professional cycling by 2020. We have today an agreement on the years 2018 and 2019, it is necessary that from 2018 we be able to see The calendar is a key element: Thirty-four or thirty-five races in the WorldTour do not take the hierarchy out of our sport.The reality is that we have great tours, monuments and also races which have become the monuments in other continents, I think of the Tour Down Under, the GP of Quebec and Montreal, the Tour of California, all of which have their place at this level. "

A big disappointment that could be expected though. I did not have great expectations, only thought he was a lesser evil than Cookson.

Quote

For me, the WorldTour – or the ProTour, as it was before – was implemented with the idea of having a worldwide sport, because cycling was more focused in Europe. I think it was a good idea to make cycling a more worldwide sport, and I think we now have some stronger teams and organisers, and the salary for riders is much better. So cycling is more important, more widespread and more worldwide than in the past, but I think that the economic model of our sport is still not very strong.

So everything should changed in order for nothing to change as in Lampedusa's (Visconti's) Il Gattopardo. Cycling needs to globalise (just like overall economy, with companies relocating production in low cost countries putting Euro common people on the dole) in order for SOME teams and SOME race organisers to get stronger. Very true here in Belgium with the vast majority being on the verge to close down. And then of course, riders being multimilionair spoiled brats is good for the sport, for sure...

Quote

I would say that the Tour de France is probably the only event in cycling that is really, really worldwide and can be seen in all the countries of the world. So to reduce the race and reduce the opportunity for sponsors to be on live TV in all the countries of the world is not a good idea.

We need to use the Tour de France to lead all of cycling and to promote it. The passion of cycling delivered by the Tour de France can be useful to bring in more fans around the world, so I think it would be a big mistake to lose one week of exposure for cycling.

Nothing new under the sun. In 1981 Lévitan already opposed to Tour of France reduction because exposure is too important advertisement-wise, at the expense of riders health and at the expense of single-day races that have no decent field anymore. Just because it is in tune with the current global economy

Lappartient's initial goals appear to be narrow and very much in line with the cycling public's perception of what is required to deliver a French TDF winner.

Hmmm. Ya think? Interesting.

I still think Cookson was a good move, to get rid of l'ancien régime. He served his purpose. And, while I was initially skeptical of Lappartient (way too brash), I feel like we are seeing some real movement. Unlike under Cookson, where I felt like everything was just kinda stuck. Lappartient is certainly better about talking to the public. Cookson would rather hide away in the office.